About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 204 (some duplicates have been removed)
ordinance does and all the proposed ordinance does is fill gaps in state law. state law does not address -- state law was changed 10 years ago to allow an administrative appeal to the board -- to elected body if the elected body is the decision maker. we've had 10 years now of having no procedure in place. this is trying to establish a procedure. so, number one, it's addressing a gap in state law that did not establish procedures for such administrative appeals. secondly, it addresses a gap in state law specifically around exemptions regarding noticing. as ann marie stated, there is absolutely no requirement under state law for noticing exemptions. the noticing that we already have, either by ordinance or by practice goes way beyond anything that state law requires. what this does is aloe exceptionally try to address the fairness question in saying that since there is extensive noticing, it happens on many actions by the city, in particular extensive noticing by anything that this department does, that we want to maximize noticing through using existing noticing. in other words, if there
consistent in domestic violence investigation; there was a time when law enforcement only focused on investigation. chief suhr recognize importance of having advocacy groups located directly in the special victims unit. family can meet with investigators and have access to services in the system as they move forward. with the efforts of kathy black and -- svu has a children's room available which offers a safe environment for children exposed to family violence. child abuse is one of the toughest crimes for investigators. children are among the most vulnerable victims. thankfully there are those like kathy baxter who are constantly fighting for the prevention of child abuse. i believe partnership with outside agencies have allowed us to find justice during this complex investigation. another important component of svu is the -- unit. those members solely on internet crimes against children. the cases are complex and require persistent and dedication to identify and locate perpetrators who possess and distribute child pornography. we are only one of many law enforc
to have violated the law. here's one finding the rent board to have violated the law. here's another oneçhc san francisco police commission to have violated the p here's another one finding the police commission to have violated the law. here's one finding the library commission to have violated the law. here's a referral for enforcement to the ethics commission. here's another order finding( uñ louise herrera to have violated the here's the referral to the district attorney regarding that matter,úz%( +p here's a referral to the ethics commissioñcjsú regarding that meter. here's a referral to the city attorney regarding thatc ; office. here's another case findingtb city attorney'sd violation. here's another referral, and a directive to all city agencies and finally, the latest one another violation ofah%(ú library of the law maybe if this board of supervisors would quit whining about the task force and telling city agencies that the law requires them to obey the sunshine ordinance, and they(4 gwñ all
because state law says once you raise $1,000 or more, you effectively become a committee. >> you just have to function in public. >> well, i do feel like the way this reads right now, that if i collected $1,000 from five friends, which i was told to use to try to convince somebody to run for elective office, and i spent that money by taking them out to -- entertaining them for an evening, that this would not be covered. that would not be covered about i this. i don't know if we're intending to know about that kind of of activity nort. but i don't think we're intending to cover that. . >> in that situation you are not spending money to convince the voters. >> true. >> so i think leaving out the word "public" is okay. >> okay. any other comments from commissioners on decision point 1? public comment? >> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it slightly to say, "in order to support the qualification of an identif
there are some who have said that there are already laws in the books that cover this situation. that is simply not the case. which i whies berkeley, san joÉe and other california cities have their own public nudity restriction beyond the if there were already laws in place to address this situation, i would not have introduced this legislation. public nudity, currently, is not -- is legal in san francisco, other than in our parks, port, and in restaurants. there's been a suggestion that we should use lewd behavior laws, particularly the indecent exposure provisions of the california penal code. i don't agree with that. i think that using lewd behavior laws is problematic and ineffective. first of all, there are going to be a lot of borderline cases about whether something is lewd or not lewd and you're putting a police officer in a terrible position of trying to determine is this person a little bit aroused or not aroused, is that adornment on the person's genitals lewd or not lewd, did he shake his genitals a little too vigorously to draw attention. no police officer should make that determi
to make one more point. specific are there laws on the books that cover this situation? there aren't and which is why berkeley and san jose and other cities have their nudity restrictions above and beyond the penal code. if there were laws in place i wouldn't have addressed this legislation and subjected myself to some, shall we say interesting commentary among some of the opponents. and i include frankly the argument that i truly disagree with, and has been repeated over and over in some quarters, that saying that you have to cover your genitalos a public street or sidewalk is no different than requiring women to wear burkas or banning gay men or drag queenos the street. i disagree with that comparison and i think most people do. public nudity is currently legal in san francisco except for the parks and ports and restaurants and the suggestion that we should use the lewd behavior laws and the indecent exposure laws is problematic and ineffectual. it's unclear that cock rings and other behaviors that we see would qualify as lewd. i think it's border line as best and it's a ter
on anyone's substantive rights under c-e-q-a. in fact, we can't do that under state law as much as sometimes we'd like to amend state law, we can't. this provides for an improved more predictable and more timely process without affecting anyone's substantive c-e-q-a rights. commissioners, today i'm sure you would hear quite a bit of hyper boll i can rhetoric about how this legislation somehow undermines or guts * c-e-q-a and how the legislation will cause the sky to collapse into the earth. which is, of course, untrue. you will also hear hyperbole about how this legislation is some sort of nefarious developer scheme, which is also untrue, and ignores the fact that c-e-q-a appeals occur commonly for anything ranging from bike lanes to affordable housing projects to park projects, library projects, small family residential projects, and other projects that are anything but a developer scheme. indeed, larger developers have the resources and the savvy to be able to predict and to make their way through expensive and lengthy c-e-q-a processes, whereas an affordable housing provider, a family tr
is that of a business contracts mediator. i also on the board of law center to prevent gun violence. i have lived in san francisco most of my life and have raised my son here. thank you very much. >> and i am commissioner mazzucco. i'm a native san franciscan and my mother-in-law lives in the richmond district. i have raised my children in this city. my day job i an attorney, but for 19 years i was an assistant district attorney and also an assistant united states attorney. so i was in law enforcement for 19 years before going into private practice. and i played football at sacred heart high school with your lieutenant over in the corner. >> dr. joe marshall, and i am the co-founder and executive director of the omega boys club. >> hi there. my name is angela chang and i have been on the police commission for i believe two and a half year and i also want to thank captain ferrigno and roosevelt school for hosting us. i am often here in richmond and eating in the restaurants and excited to come here. i manage our council justice and work on language access issues, immigrant rights and also in the juve
victims unit leads the way setting the standard for best practices in law enforcement. tvu has several members that our instructors who travel to california to train other law enforcement agencies. as the commanding officer of svu i stand before you tonight very proud of the caliber of members of the officers assigned to svu. at the same time recognize we are only one piece of the puzzle.under financial crimes . the 20 are crosstrained in domestic violence, sexual assault, elderly abuse. it takes commitment and dedication.3 it is not always easy. we have to ourselves forward. sometimes the hardest work has the best reward. >> i know inspector robert -- an inspector who does financial crimes actually taught me -- i don't know how the investigator -- he is an accountant, you have a number of cherished inspectors, everyone in the community would be sad to lose. and we look forward to continuing to work with you guys on that. (off mic) >> let's not pick sides. >> captain, thank you so much for this report. it is encouraging on so many levels. two things: one, to be clear for folk
, law enforcement, civil litigants and others about location information and other information about individuals. we need to have transparency about how often this information is being shared in order to have an informed dialogue with you, with the commission, with the public and our legislators about how to handle this information, and information about whether those requests are complied with. thank you very much. >> thank you, i think that's the strongest part of the resolution. supervisor mar. >> i want to thank the aclu for raising concerns about the privacy concerns. i am surprised about how much information from an app you can get. supervisor avalos and i were chatting a little bit, my 12-year-old using her clipper card quite a bit. i am curious whether she goes where she says she is but i understand the privacy concerns especially within the mta to be more transparent so i am really appreciative of the legislation and i'd like to ask if i could be added as a co-sponsor as well. >> great. it's important to say that the resolution references that it's really bart and the ma
under current law. but i think the commission agreed that the raising and spending of that size of money was not designed by the voters to be something that went unregulated. so the commission directed the staff to put together some provisions that would, as i said, regulate committed are designed to draft, particularly those that raise tangible sums of money. the reason for that is that a citywide campaign aimed at a single person still reaches people citywide, and would conceivably impact their decisions at the polling place based on the fact that you get someone to run for office by extolling their virtues. so these rectally simple to follow will treat under our law, such campaigns, such committees, excuse me, as primarily formed campaigns and therefore, report their activities to the voters. >> they are divided into two diction points. does the commissioners have any questions with regards to decision point 1? i have a question and it has to do with our definition of "support." i have some concern that it's maybe a little too restrictive, because i could imagine someone simply s
. this is filling a big gap in state law in terms of administering an appeals process and in terms of noticing. there is quite a bit of commentary which, i'll restrain from going too much into in term of where it's coming from, that suggests that somehow this proposal is being consistent with state law. it is restating state law in a couple instances. but since this is essentially gap-filling legislation, it is not going beyond or inconsistent with state law. * i think the issue that you are most likely to get confused about, whether by confusion of the speakers or by deliberate representation -- misrepresentations by the speakers, is this issue of substantial evidence. and without going into a long legal treatise, there's two ways in which the term substantial evidence is used in c-e-q-a. one is an evidencery standard. one is an appellate standard. * the way in which this is introduced in this legislation has to do with evidence and very simply, if you want to make a case for conclusion, whether you is the city or you is the appellant, you need to substantial evident to support it. that's all
under state law. there are a number of notice provisions that are in existing article and there are supplemental notices like posting on website that we do now. but basically whether you get that notice or whether you don't, you need to exercise your rights within six months. that's how c-e-q-a is structured. >> well, this i think is something that supervisor is trying to deal with and it's a little unrealistic. and it happens, i've heard of many instances where projects are approved. the project sponsor begins, has the contractor, is almost starting to do work sometimes. and, you know, during that period of time all of a sudden an appeal pops up and it has to be heard and nothing can be done any further until the appeal is done. i think that that window is too long. perhaps 20 days is too short. but i mean, i think that, you know, there is some appeal in the range of a month or something like that would be a realistic one in my mind that, you know, and also increasing noticing as you've spoken about, making notice as more universal as possible without necessarily send
had a constitutional law here, i'm not sure that it is hour is the best use. the attorney general did do a law-enforcement bulletin; the issue is whether the local jurisdiction is obligated to use state resources to do a federal detainer; it is specific to the sheriff's department. part of the notion is that it is not the job ofrom my law enforcement to enforce immigration policy; we are here to keep people safe. we appreciate the chief's passion. and ultimately where people come is not relevant and using this forum is important to underscore that commitment, and i'm glad the chief is clear and unequivocal about that. >> victims are not at risk for deportation. that is abundantly clear from what the chief has said. our next line item is regarding the san francisco police department special victims unit. >> i would like to introduce deputy director, lisa hoffman, waiting to tell you about the new system. >> sorry about that. >> good evening and thyo for letting me have a moment to speak. i will keep it brief. we have beein the rocess after procuring enough that you the cur
laws in 2011 as they did in any recent previous year. many states are actually still shutting down crucial reproductive health and family planning services for women throughout the country. the house of representatives recently actually voted, in its most recent session to defund title 10 which is the only federal program that is exclusively dedicated to family planning and reproductive-%( +/ health, including agencies like planned parenthood. we in san francisco, can be proud of our history and our ÷;f protecting the right of women to choose, and here in san francisco because of the efforts of many people, including supervisor cohen, were one of the first cities to pass an ordinance forbidding crisis pregnancy centers that do not provide or refer abortion care from continuing to use deceptive advertising to take advantage of vulnerable pregnant women. so it's something to be proud of. and our own mayor has also cosponsored a resolution approved by the u.s. conference of mayors where the right of women to choose
of facts and conclusions of law. and so i was just wondering what was exactly contemplated by that? is that something written or just orally? when the vote is taken? it's sort of a companion question to commissioner renne's point and then i see later in section e, under "orders," it says, "the commission will instruct staff to prepare written order reflecting the commission's findings." so then i was wondering if what was contemplated was the findings of fact and conclusions of law to be incorporated in that order, which we would instruct, based on our vote and finding, verbally. or is there a more extensive process that is contemplated with respect to preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law? >> i think they just contemplated the commission doing it during the hearing. >> okay. >> that was my understanding as well and certainly if it was a complicated issue where we wanted to make written findings and that the summary order was more involved, i think we could do more. but i think the idea is that we can hopefully make them orally to get to resolution quickly. >> yes
and ban that and our constitution is built on individual's rights and pursuit to happiness. many laws have been passed by the majority over years and ultimately based on bigotry and disgust and gay marriage and sodomy and many more. every time one of the laws is tested in court it has been eventually over turned. the same thing would happen here. it hurts no one. let's not pass it just because a few people find it disgusting. san francisco is about individual's rights and people come to the city to be who they are without concerns of bigging on tree and scorn. nudity is one more freedom that san francisco has championed. we took a step back with the towel law. let's not take another step backwards. i leave you with this quote from an rand. those that deny individual rights cannot be defenders for the majority. this legislation is using a sledge hammer to kill a flea. i urge you to vote no. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i am bruce dodea. as a child my father had a very racist sort of perspective on things. he felt that black people were bad people
conflict with state law and increase rather than reduce the city's exposure to c-e-q-a litigation and specifically i'm talking about confusing and unnecessarily complex processes for providing notice of c-e-q-a exemption determinations. under the proposed amendment, members of the public must submit written materials regarding an appeal to the board one full day before the city is required to give notice of the appeal. in other words, you have to give your written materials are due before member of the public are informed that an appeal is happening. the proposed amendments would deem valid prior c-e-q-a approval actions which could force project appellants to file lawsuits even before the board reaches decisions on their appeals in order to avoid c-e-q-a's strict statute of limitations. this could subject the city to additional and unnecessary expensive litigation. and finally, the proposed amendments would force members of the public to file two appeals and pay two appeal fees of $500 each in order to seek review proposed negative declarations before the board of supervisors. i
with existing law. there is no candidate. therefore, there is no campaign. and we have to identify what that is, because the entities don't exist in current law. >> sorry. if i may, is the intent to say that draft committees are subject to the same filing requirements is that the same intent? >> yes. >> i was going to suggest language like that. >> does it need to say "draft committees that are supporting an identifiable person?" >> no, because that is the definition of the draft committee. >> well, it is here. i think commissioner lui's suggestion makes sense draft committees shall file the same campaign finance-related filings reports or statements as for or required to be filed by a primarily formed committee. >> right. >> can i just suggest that we cut it -- we use the same language that we have, but on line 3, stop it after "city elective office?" >> yes. >> i like it. can someone read it again as proposed? >> draft committees shall file any campaign-related filings reports or statements required by either state or local law for a primarily formed committee supporting a candi
as well because it has to do with the abuse of power, from law enforcement to elected3* officials, retired politiciansk= io such as doug bosco and willie brown. it's because of3tj their power that my daughter went from missing9i%( 7zÑ to dead. this has to do with domestic violence. if sonoms of energy in her father raping me teen prostitution, and teen drugs not being locked up she would be alive. i am sick when i look and compare and contrast what happened with domestic dispute in your county and in mine, knowing that this same power and influence that prevented justice in my case created another set of injustice in the opposite direction in your case. i know that you have somewhat resolved that problem, but not fully. i came here specifically to speak to you, and also to your sheriff. one of the things-zp8d that could come out of this as a positive with all this dispute about legitimate rape is i begged for the investigators to give me a polygraph test. they said they couldn't. so i'd like your help with gettin
. it is city law. it is what we have been raised on. >> does the department have the authority to control that information within its own database so it is and shared with the federal authorities? >> what information is that? >> my understanding is there is no opt in and out. maybe commissioner chan can say something. >> secure communities is a post-arrest situation, a sheriff situation. those questions are not asked at the police department level. >> the chief has been extremely supportive of efforts by community groups. chief beal recently met with community groups about the same issue, that is something they have been receptive, trying to address. -- has resulted in over 638 deportations as of august this year. it has an impact on the victims of domestic violence. it is a continual problem. >> but not from the san francisco police department. >> there is a reason case, longer story. not because of the specific police officers fall; this program has a direct connection to the immigration database. it is problematic. >> commissioner cahn is passionate about. >> appropriately so.
and challenges that need to be answered and looked at because i do think the law of unintended consequences is that people are concerned about. and i know that we're not going to resolve those issues here today. and i guess it's my advice to the supervisor would be really to spend some time looking at this issue around discretionary permits, the discretionary actions and appeals and triggers around that. and also around the window of appeals. and also notice. i actually don't like the reduction in notice for projects over 5 acres. we were talking about western soma earlier and the fact that the whole [speaker not understood] of the city being rezoned and people can be completely unaware that their properties, the nature of the zoning of their properties is changing that could be negative. i don't think is a good thing. * swath i actually think that provision is problematic in this legislation. i'm generally supportive of reform and i'd like to see some reform because we have booker t. washington, other cases we have that there has been c-e-q-a abuse and the challenge that you do have is no
, the mother-in-law for our on again, off again, on again deputy clerk da clerk kayn gay. secondly, if we could, on behalf of the entire board of supervisors, i'd ask if we could adjourn today's meeting in memory of former san matillo county supervisor mike nevin. mike was a very good friend of mine, someone who i looked up to a great deal, someone who i really saw as a role model in this job. prior to entering politics, mike was a 27 year member of the rising to the level of inspector. he then, in his adopted home of daly city, joined the daly city city council, served there for 10 years, serving as mayor for two years. he then stepped up to the san matillo county board of supervisors and served on that board for 12 years. in his collective 10 year at both daly city city council and county board of supervisors he served on a variety of regional agencies, mtc, caltrain, bay area management district, you name it, he probably served on it. what i got to know him well on was transportation issues. when i had the pleasure of serving at the caltran board where supervisor cohen is now, and it could o
not to be confused with federal law then after first amendment which included right too( 7ç redress, evidence female right%( was not until 1920, be we the people have redressed so many times through/jp)u republican, democratic party -- legislation us of a social cultural politicaln-$ñ economic education schooling work ethic based upon capital currency class rank defined given as birth right invention obliged by law proven to imposition fraudulent death. the advocates have said use language come together. this is2j public ownership of means of production. again redress expose%(úe÷ democraticpyjá and republican parties, majority legislative leadership as capital imperialist confrontation. witness 1776 victory of so many african negro slave8i)[ owners contributionm] 6/ to declaration of independence original us ofw constitution fortify caitionz of thez=( this deceptive timing for heart beat:u fascist language inflections0/( 3'ñ nursing( &u security asno fending interest. >> i'd like tot tv. google michael akino mk ultra. wou
it is not a category that one can file on currently. that's what this law does is make it a category that a person can come and file a petition about. so that is sort of circular logic and i wanted to correct that for the record. it is really important, in fact critical, that tenants have this administrative remedy for the issue of landlord harassment. tenants shouldn't be forced to only use the courts, especially low income tenants who don't have a lot of resources may also have language access issues and disabilities and other things that make it really challenging. the harassment issue is, in fact, a loophole. it is used as a tool to get around our very strong tenant protections that ensure that people are not evicted without cause, without just cause. harassment is, in fact, not a just cause. and so it should be amended to the rent ordinance so that essentially it is seen as another reason why it would be unlawful for a landlord to evict. that's simply what we're saying through doing this, is that a landlord cannot evict a tenant out of their home by a harassment and i am for one tired of see
and not supporting their child to tell them just what the law is and what is expected of them, so we are seeing huge leadership from this agency and this is where you're seeing the 202 percent increase, but if you look you will see that the crisis lines, shelter services, general statistics, and cases received are still climbing in san francisco. we do not believe that is because there is more domestic violence. we believe it is because the community is starting to be aware and trust all of our systems, everybody in this room, so lisa at 911, and all of the police department and everybody who's working on this we are gaining the trust of the survivors of their communities. in a post 9/11 world we saw a real drop and chilling effect in victims being willing to come forward. it was another big act of courage as many of you know just naming domestic violence or perhaps making a change in how you're violence is living is a huge courageous move, but to call when at that point they were afraid it was another huge courageous move so i feel both the state and our diverse and wonderful city has had a real
? in other words, up to 40 years that we can't do to, is that right? >> the state law allows bonds to be levied by assessment districts and said that the districts can be expire before the bonds are repaid, but it doesn't exclusively say you can go out to 30 or 40 years, if needed. so we wanted to explicitly say in our enabling ordinance, if the district levies bond which is allowed under state law, those districts can have a term up to 40 years in order to replay that financing. so it could be interpreted right now under state law that you could do it, but we wanted to be more explicit and clear, so there won't be any potential challenges in the future. >> so is there something stopping a district from being in existence for 40 years right now? >> again, like i said, the state law is not clear on this and so we deposit want -- didn't want a challenge if we allowed up to 40 years and wanted to amend the local ordinance to allow us to do that. it's allowed, but it's not explicitly clear. >> it's a function of a gray area as opposed to direct effort to prevent local municipal
to be watched. san francisco is only 47 square miles and we need the strongest c-e-q-a laws that could be in existence. we can't lower it to the state level. this is crucial. we live in a dense area and here people are just trying to cut back public debate, public opportunities for appeal. it's almost as though the lobbyists were allowed to write this. you heard some of the developers here -- one developer. you know, for them it's great. for the rest of us, terrible, unbelievable. supervisor peskin says he can't understand what the problem is. he says tens of thousands of c-e-q-a determinations are being made every year and only a couple dozens are appealed. that's a small price to pay to try to save our environment, our quality of life. it's far more important than developers or speculators getting their profits. thank you. >>> good afternoon. my name is genie kwok. the proposed changes to san francisco's c-e-q-a procedures have many problems such as incomprehensible appeals deadlines and a five-acre exemption [speaker not understood]. it is on a 20-acre campus. the focus of my talkin
respond to us via snail mail or email. we will make sure that we meet the minimum requirements of the law, which is two of the notifications must be mailed before service occurs, and then two of the notifications must be mailed after service has occurred within a 60 day boundary before and 60 day boundary after, so customers will know from us what we think their bill experience will be. customers who don't opt out after the first two notifications and get enrolled in the program see their first bill and decide they don't want to be part of the program will then receive again -- again they will receive an opt out notification and tell us no thank you at that point. they can call, let us know by various means that they want out, and throughout this time period we will be utilizing broadcast media, social media, broadcast media to make sure folks are aware. it's not just a quiet piece of mail that shows up at their home. it's going to be a full campaign here in the city, television, out door, advertising, newspaper, social media. our goal is really to reach as many people as possible thr
law enforcement can be corrupt. so, they don't have the trust that's needed in order to report domestic violence and family violence. so, i'm very pleased today to report on a very strong and deep collaboration between our department, the district attorney's office, asian women shelter and casa of the women. we've been awarded a $650,000 grant over two years to really look at high-risk populations, limited english proficiency and/or lgbt groups. because we really see gaps in their ability to access the criminal justice system on domestic violence. and i'm going to ask tara to give you some details on how this extends and expands on existing work. >> great, thank you. so, there are four program components under this grant award. one is centralizing prosecution which builds off of the work of the limited english proficiency subunit within the district attorney's office, to prosecute perpetrators in cases where the victim is limited english proficient. this unit will serve as liaison for the identification of victim who are considered to be at high risk of [speaker not understood]
't that -- i don't know what the state law says. but other people have claimed that that skirts the state law because the state law says a certification can be appealed to the legislative body. >> only if it's not -- if they're not the final decision making body on the c-e-q-a document. so, in this case they would be required to be the final decision making body. the fact that the planning commission would have done all the hard work getting through the document, getting the record all put together, making sure that it's in good shape before it gets to them doesn't mean that the board isn't the final decision making body. >> in those instances, wouldn't it be just easier for the board just to be the certifying body and to bypass the commission all together? >> i think they appreciate the work that you do here. >> well, i'm saying it just seems like -- then you're forcing the people who may be in the current system thinking of filing an appeal on a certification to then -- the process just changes to where instead of filing an actual appeal, they would prepare the same kind of document, let's
are really protecting, defending our most vulnerable residents, and helping property owners to follow the law. and so this particular case of september 12 of this year, all the violations have been corrected and the building has been restored to a livable state for 48 families that reside on this property. so i want to take this time and acknowledge the members of our city family that actually make this happen. we can legislate law. we can talk about building code. but there are people that actually go out there and make that law reality for the residents here in san francisco. so i want to thank rosemary, james, james, david, and allen davidson. we want to recognize you today for your outstanding work protecting the basic living conditions of 48 san francisco families living at 245 leavenworth over the last three years. thank you for your leadership in abating 423 housing code+nc'p violations and restoring the building to a livable state for the residents. the board of supervisors extend its highest commendation and appreciation. thank you very much. >> supervisor, thank you very much for t
or administrative law judge where both the tenant and the landlord may appear and make oral presentations, including presentation of other witnesses. following such hearing the administrative law judge shall provide the board with a summary of evidence produced at the hearing. that's basically what would be added. i believe that just the passage of prop m which, again, was challenged in court and dismissed is an indication that residents in this city do feel that harassment is a real issue that many of them deal with regardless of whether the statistics, if one could read prop m and its passage is an ipld indication people need for protection around this issue. that's an indicator. that's where i'll leave it. colleagues, are there any -- supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i want to thank the member s of the public who came out to give testimony as well as the leaders in the industry, given your perspective. this has actually been a very eye-opening experience listening to this. i too am a renter but as many of you know, i represent district 10 which is the baby portrero hill neighborhoo
that would violate state law, and i assume that we have looked at what the limits are that the law imposes on us. would you elaborate a little bit how what we're doing has been shaped to fit within the state law or on the other hand where is there jeopardy for us? >> so the notification and education program survey and early notification portions are the sort of the new pieces that aren't required by state law. we are using those outreach efforts, those outreach components to inform who we talk to in the actual statutory opt out phase. we are not suggesting that anyone who is going to be served by cleanpower sf would not receive an opt out notification. anyone who wishes to participate can participate which sounds like opting in, but we won't enroll them after we have included them in an opt out process. so i think we have worked with the city attorney o this to make sure we are accurately understanding our obligation and that our approach is consistent with it. we think it is. and so we're not always this careful with our language as we should be, but the actual steps will be anyone
to change the law and raise awareness. we want to organize seniors and people with disabilities in sros to say we demand and deserve better. so that people can also say this is not what should be going on in our city. will like some of you to come out with us on that day, to the rally. maybe somebody representing the council should speak. testify before the land use committee that they. will be in touch with the mayor's office; presumably they will pass on to all of you when those things are happening. >> chair: jessica, i think the idea of including the mayor's disability council and the technical assistance guidelines is excellent. my colleagues are interested in that. before i -- have you been in contact with chief inspector bosky at the department of building inspection? she may be able to offer support as well. >> we have been working closely with rosemary bosky (sounds like) since the beginning; she has been wonderful, helping us understand what is in the code, what should be in the code, making amendments to the legislation as well. >> thank you. >> thank you for your prese
people to take advantage of the laws as they stand. and i hope that we will move forward in a direction that lets people have full quiet enjoyment of their home and the opportunity to live in a stress-free condition that doesn't further exacerbate their health. i have limited hours each day in which i feel well enough to do much of anything and i spent a tremendous amount of the time i do have available trying to protect my rights. i've never been late on my rent, i am a good neighbor and i just want to be left alone in peace and quiet to enjoy my home and get better. >> good afternoon, my name is ralph silverman, i just want to express my example of being harassed for the last two years in my single, what is it, my unit. i rent a room in san francisco for the last 7 years. i have a master tenant, we share the flat, they want me out. they have harassed me continuously the last two years, vandalizing my property, my bicycle repeatedly. i get no protection from the police department, san francisco rent board, gone through the mediation process unsuccessfully, they offered a thousand
the manager just did a real routine thing about the bed bugs. so my father-in-law went to chinatown cdc for help. so that was brought to the attention of the health department. so he couldn't even sleep well at night. so we are really hopeful that the legislation will help people to understand how they are treated and get better. we are living in a pretty bad situation once you have bed bugs. so we hope that we could get this legislation done really fast, so things will get better for us. we thank the supervisors to put such an emphasis on improving the environment for us. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call up a couple more name cards. [ reading speakers' names ] >> good afternoon supervisors, thank you, my name is jorge potio, a lifetime resident of san francisco and i want to start by recognizing the hard work that has been put into the legislation. to those affects and to those who are supporting the people affected by this issue, really, it's serving as kind of a buffer to what could have been a real crisis. as a housing rights advocate for the mission collaborative
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 204 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)